Posted on 03/24/2009 7:53:44 AM PDT by SmithL
At California's historic hearing on Proposition 8 earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin briefly imagined a scenario that might solve the legal conflict over a gay marriage ban.
What if the government were to get out of the "marriage business," Ming asked, and issue civil-union licenses to both straight and gay couples?
The justices agreed such a change would have to be handled by the Legislature, and discussion closed.
But outside the court, the question still hung in the air.
On March 10, five days after the court hearing, two California college students got the OK from state election officials to try to put Ming's question before voters.
The students are circulating petitions for a ballot initiative that would strike the word "marriage" from state laws and substitute "domestic partnership."
The change would keep all the rights of marriage now on the books. But it would nullify Proposition 8 and make the new partnership category applicable to both gay and straight.
"We want to take marriage out of the battlefield," said Ali Shams, a University of California, San Diego, student who co-authored the language.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Marriage = One man and One woman AT A TIME with all the divorces happening. When I was growing up in the 1950s divorce was considered just as bad, as gay marriage is now. Now people get a divorce at the drop of a hat. They get bored and get a divorce. I think they should make divorce much more difficult and expensive to get, except in the rare case of actual physical abuse.
Not slouching towards Gomorrah, as Robert Bork wrote, but galloping.
I'm not sure it's tolerable, either. I'm still thinking about it all. But I've been thinking for a while that the government's intrusion into the family is already so pervasive that there's really not much left to protect.
The law's legitimacy to deal with family matters depends primarily on protecting the property rights of the spouses, protecting the rights of the parents to raise their children, and protecting the rights of the children to be free from abuse and to be raised by their loving natural parents.
All of these purposes have been so thoroughly corrupted by our failed family legislation that I'm wondering if it's not time to start over.
How is government going to be less intrusive by saying that the people have no right to representation on the issue of marriage?
Do you think that all of sudden lawsuits are going to stop against anyone who doesn’t agree with the open expression of homosexuality in society?
Do you think that government run schools will stop being a target for homosexual activism? Do you think that Hollyweird and the media will just stop promoting it as well?
Either ‘We the People’ have a right to define marriage for society as being only between one man and one woman or else we don’t and the leftwing will define it through the Courts by continually suing anyone who disagrees. This is a battle that we either win or lose. There is no compromise.
I haven’t decided on all of your questions, and I never claimed that this proposal will make government less intrusive, or that it will stop lawsuits against those of us who believe homosexuality is wrong.
But I don’t think that our side winning the “definition of marriage” debate will accomplish those things, either. My point is simply that our society let the marriage cat out of the bag over 50 years ago when it accepted easy divorce, and that perhaps it’s time to think of another strategy for getting it back in.
I think we need to consider using the momentum of the pro-homosexual crowd against them, in a legal jujitsu move. They always say that government should stay out of the bedroom, and they have a valid point. My employer, for example, by offering domestic partners the right to health insurance, requires the employee to certify that they are gay. Why should employers care whether or not two people living together are having sex?
Would it really be an attack against the family to allow two heterosexual men sharing an apartment to have the same benefit? Or to allow a man and his wife who are living with and supporting his aged mother to include her in his health insurance policy? Or to allow two elderly friends who share a house for the companionship and economy of the situation, to pay taxes together as a domestic partnership? That is what they are, after all... domestic partners.
The effect of this hypothetical new arrangement on children would be no worse than the family law we already have.
You see, by using the momentum of the pro-homosexual “marriage” crowd we may actually be able to help solve other legitimate societal problems in a way that defuses the situation, and perhaps allow us to focus some of our energy on building up marriage in a spiritual and religious sense, which is the only way our current situation will eventually be reversed.
Then, marriage becomes a religious issue for churches and synagogues to decide, and the state no longer can intrude into religion, at least over this issue.
And there really is another issue here: freedom of religion. It is well known that some well recognized religions accept polygamy. Is it constitutional to prohibit them from practicing their religion in this matter? I haven’t decided, personally, but it does give me pause.
I think that having domestic partnerships open to two or more people, without any implication of sexual activity between them, may be something that might, possibly, be helpful to society. That’s all I’m saying. I don’t think it’s such a crazy idea, and I don’t think we ought to dismiss it out of hand as an attack on the traditional family. It may, possibly, actually provide a legal structure that can benefit families.
I’m not convinced of all this myself. I’m just trying to work it all out, and I think that it’s something worth discussing in a calm, reasoned way, while being realistic about the state marriage, family life, and family law are already in.
Personally I think that you are putting way too much emphasis on the issue of benefits because I do not believe that is the real agenda of the left wing in promoting same sex marraige. The real agenda of the leftwing in my opinion is to establish freedom of sexuality as a Constitutional right through the Court system and then to eventually move forward with destruction of the family unit and parental rights by using the sexuality of minors as a new way to have the state move in between parents and their children.
Most family law (including marraige) and sexuality laws (like the age of consent) have been state laws whereas the people have decided the law through their representaives.
Once the leftwing wins this battle in regards to homosexuality then they will have created a precedent for sexuality rights. They will have established that the People do not have the right to make law on this issue through their representives.
The leftwing has been waging a campaign through their control of Hollyweird, the media and the schools to sexualize the children of America at earlier and earlier ages for years upon years now.
If we lose and no longer have the right to define right and wrong in society in regards to sexuality on this issue then why should we have the right to tell other families (through laws and government) when their children are old enough to have sex? Every state has different laws just as they did on this issue.
But even in regards to benefits I would have to think that domestic partner benefits without any stipulation of a sexual partnership will still lead to disastor for society and not a benefit. It will promote living situations simply based upon gaining these benfits and will also be a huge drag on the health care system.
I can since it's something I've been thinking about before I heard about the gay marriage issue. We all talk about how the government screws up everything it touches, especially when that power isn't written into the Constitution. Just apply the concept consistently.
My views are generally (small l) libertarian. The government has no business interfering in personal affairs unless an immediate, proven, concrete harm will result. The flip side is the government has no business promoting personal affairs unless the opposite good will result (not just opinion, but WILL result). Look where well-intentioned social engineering has gotten us to today.
Now that I've thought about it more, I think I'm actually for registered gay partnerships, the government delving a bit into promotion. They're gay, that's a fact. They're most likely going to stay gay no matter what any law is. I'd rather have them together in monogamous partnerships than running around spreading disease in bath houses and bathroom stalls. I see it as a public health issue. And bring with it full-fault dissolution of the partnership like marriage used to be.
But I'd have the adoption laws saying the parents must be a man and a woman in a registered partnership. There is nothing showing that spreading homosexuality is a positive thing (well, nothing we wouldn't be laughing at).
Absolutely wrong!
The Kool Aid might taste great, but it's still laced with cyanide.
I can't believe the naivete of supposed conservatives on this board who, for some reason, fail to see the absurdity of this solution. Either you're a troll, or you're just plain blind. Don't you even see what's happened in areas of the country where leftism has gained the greatest foothold? The defense of "religious conscience" is a very thin shield (paper thin, actually) against the logical conclusion in practical application of what the homo-leftists are after. They are, by admission, after "respect" and "dignity." Do you think those malleable, nebulous "rights" can be legislated? If there is any recess of public life from which a homosexual somehow feels disenfranchised, do you think the thin excuse of religious freedom will be an obstacle to obtaining the remedy to his perceived slight?
The answer is contained in the very language of those proposed pieces of legislation intended to grant marriage, or the identical rights of marriage, to same-sex couples, if we would but have the sensibility to see. In almost every case, virtually without exception, there is inserted a small, but significant, clause to this or some similar effect: "religious organizations will be exempted from the application of this law." Oh, how nice of the big, benevolent government - granting us lowly, unenlightened ones the enumerated right to disagree and graciously let us actually practice our religious convictions! At best, the employment of this escape clause is patronizing and belittling. But there is a much worse implication, one I haven't heard expounded at all in the rancor and back-and-forth philosophizing regarding marriage in the last few years. Why does the subject of religious objection even require mentioning?
Why couldn't such a statue exist without this exemption and just allow the US Constitution to do it's job regarding religious liberty? Why the compelling impulse - again, nearly all proposed legislation contains this exemption clause - to include this language? The answer is simply that it requires a reiteration because in the direction that our governmental culture is going, this Constitutional concept is in grave danger. The goal, I believe, is to create the perception that the right to object is given. But if given, it can just as easily be taken away.
Never mind that the Constitution of the United States guarantees this right. The Methodist organization in New Jersey was ordered to serve the interests of lesbians wanting to have their commitment ceremony on Church property against its wishes or lose tax exemption. The conscience of the Church wasn't much of a hindrance in that case, was it? Catholic Charities, a major mission of which is to place children with adoptive parents, was shut down in Massachusetts because the perceive slight to homosexual couples trumped established Church teaching. A lodge building owned and operated by the Knights of Columbus in Vancouver lost a suit filed by a homosexual couple who wanted to have their reception in the Church-owned building. These are just a few of the more well-known violations of religious freedom. There will no doubt be many more.
Listening to the homo-activists, you learn what freedom of religious conscience means in their minds: "As long as you practice your religion discreetly, behind the walls of your church, out of the public view, we won't bother you. Religion is the words you utter and the rituals you do behind those closed walls." But the door is a one-way valve. Religion better not exit that door, but if they want to get involved, because of some emptiness in their lives or perceived slight, they feel perfectly free to intrude, perversion and all, into the sanctuary, demanding acceptance of their perverse lifestyle at the point of the government spear.
Homo-activism WILL intrude into the Church. We are just too naive to see it now.
You make an excellent point here, and this is pretty much why I'm not convinced myself that this is a good idea. Sometimes I like to approach these types of questions as if we could just magically make it happen the way I imagine, with all the unspoken assumptions I bring to the table, and without the types of risks you bring up. In other words, I tend to approach questions theoretically, rather than practically.
You speak of how such a plan would destroy the family. My initial thought is that it's hard to do much more harm to the family than has already been done. But that might be a little too glib. I can imagine, for example, with the current president and congress, a situation like the one in Brave New World, where the government is directly responsible for raising kids. As bad as things are getting, we're not quite there yet. So perhaps I am a little too enamored of the potential benefits and am not giving the negatives enough consideration.
Well, I'm not a troll (although my wife may disagree), but I may be blind. Like I mentioned above, I tend to think about these things from a theoretical point of view, and may not always give enough consideration to how the real, underlying motivations of those with whom I disagree will play out in reality.
You bring up a very valid point about Why does the subject of religious objection even require mentioning in these laws about domestic partnerships? There are two possible reasons I see. The more probable is the one you mention... to make us believe that "the government gives, and the government can taketh away" the right to religious objection. This explanation is supported by the examples you give, and many others. But there is another plausible explanation... that by failing to include this type of language, these bills would not pass because too many people fear (rightly, IMHO) that the bill would infringe on freedom of religion.
And you're right that homo-activism will intrude on the Church. It already has. But that's due more to the failure of church members to be faithful than it is due to the law and the courts controlling what each religion believes and how it conducts its internal affairs.
Thanks. I appreciate your comment.
I agree with your sentiment that having less government involvement in the area of marraige could be better if all things were to go along the lines of supporting individual liberty. Unfortunetally I do not believe that we have that luxory though at all.
The leftwing statists in this country have been for the Marxist agenda of the abolition of family since the sixties took hold.
The leftwing claims to be against a theocracy but in it’s place they strongly support enforcing an immoral code and agenda of sexual rights that is directed at our children and mankind’s future.
When we as adults give up the right to have representation on an issue (like what is right or wrong in regards to sexuality in society) then we are also giving it up for our children.
The leftwing already is known for supporting underage sexual activity which is why the leftwing are against parental notification in regards to sexual issues with minors, for ridiculous sexual education policies in government run schools, etc....
If we lose this battle of representation in society then it will extend to our children.
Fair enough. I've considered this reasoning as well. But it still begs the question of why people fear that religion will be forced to accommodate such a new and radical reordering of society in the first place. Twenty or thirty years ago this issue of letting religious communities set their own standards would have been assumed to be a standing right, with no need for constant reiteration. Thou dost protest too much. We must have come a long way (in the wrong direction) in the past several decades to warrant this subtle but significant sea-change in our thinking.
And you're right that homo-activism will intrude on the Church. ... But that's due more to the failure of church members to be faithful than it is due to the law and the courts controlling what each religion believes and how it conducts its internal affairs.
To some extent you're correct. The Church (and I mean this in the universal sense) is sick and waning in its influence on society by no one's fault but those who claim Christ's name. Divorce is just about as rampant, and excused, in evangelical Christianity as it is in any other parts of society - there is no longer any difference between the Church and the world. Both are titillated by the coarse pop-culture entertainment that pervades society, both are inveigled by the dollar, and lust for power, recognition, and instant gratification.
But even those faithful quarters, those few that faithfully adhere to scriptural teaching to the best of their ability, will be deluged with homosexual filth as the tide grows more and more in their favor. I think it has been proven over the past decade that the nature of this debauched culture is of an encroaching animal, seeking out and invading all areas where it detects the smallest animosity to its insistent demands. Consider Soul Force, that radical homosexual organization that makes it their official mission to travel the US in search of colleges and churches in which to protest (they call it "dialog", but we know better,) even trespassing to inject their agenda against college's wishes. When the Cali. Supreme Court legislated same-sex "marriage" last year, homo-activists sought out and traveled to those small, conservative-leaning communities that showed resistance to their agenda to force these communities to conduct their fake-weddings. The examples are numerous and growing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.